Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-19 Thread Robert DuToit
Hi Mike, Just got in I did discover the --protect-decmpfs and got it working! Great news. Thanks for keeping this alive and well for us OSX folks. I'll rebuild with the new diff you sent today. Thanks again, Rob On May 19, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Mike Bombich wrote: > Hi Robert: > >

Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-19 Thread Mike Bombich
Hi Robert: My apologies, that "if (fnamecmp)" should be commented out as you discovered.  Did you read the updated man page to see the new arguments available for supporting HFS+ compression?  It isn't on by default, you need to use --protect-decmpfs, for example, to preserve those xattrs.I crafted

Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-18 Thread Robert DuToit
Hi Mike, I guess I did something wrong or removing that line 283 in proto.h was critical I ran fileflags and crtimes patches first and then rsync_3.0.6-hfs-compression_20091027.diff but the test shows no go. Sub-test: decmpfs xattr ... not preserved Sub-test: UF_COMPRESSED flag ... not set Th

Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-18 Thread Robert DuToit
Hi Mike, Thanks so much After some searching I just found the patch and built on 3.0.6 but got an error on make after running fileflags.diff, crtimes.diff and your patch perl ./mkproto.pl ./*.c ./lib/compat.c In file included from ./rsync.h:971, from ./rounding.c:20: ./proto.h

Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-18 Thread Mike Bombich
Hi Rob: I posted a patch several months ago (October 28, to be specific) that offers HFS+ compression support for rsync. It's OS-specific, so I don't expect the rsync team to maintain the patch, but I'll be keeping it as up to date as I can. Right now it's built and tested against rsy

Re: OSX and HFS+ filesystem compression

2010-05-18 Thread Kyle Lanclos
Robert DuToit wrote: > I have been reading about the HFS+ filesystem compression on Snow Leopard > and how copying or cloning over system files with rsync and other tools > results in them being expanded on destination. I was wondering if there > was any thoughts on updating rsync to accommodate th